Here's my tiny little story of minimum 'connection' (I hope I'm not repeating myself): I went to graduate school in the same town where the man has his church. At the time, the church was in a building near one of the interstate exits. It was notable for the fact that it took up one half of the structure; the other half was a furniture store. I think he owned the whole kit and kaboodle. (I was not an attendee of the church.)

This guy is an @**.He was asked by the US military, and no doubt other authorities, not to do this. He did it anyway. Now aid workers and police officers, people with a much more courageous and generous spirit than he, are dead.

Yesterday, there was an article in the New York Daily News about him. I took exception to one sentence where the writer stated:

"Ex-Jones parishioners have come out against the pastor, describing his church as an orthodox cult."

I took advantage of her email address at the end of the article and pointed out her misuse of the word "orthodox' in the context of the article. (I know, she didn't use it as a proper noun or adjective.) I politely pointed out some definitions of the word orthodox from the dictionary as well as the word 'fundamentalist' and suggested that no adjective was needed for the word cult. I also pointed out that since her article was online and would be read in the Muslim world, that someone there might not pick up on the linguistic distinction thereby placing Orthodox Churches and faithful at risk.

Much to my pleasant surprise, within a few minutes of my email, she replied, thanked me for pointing this out and she immediately changed her online article.

Sometimes it is good to write and complain in a reasoned manner. You never know.

Yeah, you know, but he can't go around and listen to crazy politically correct people like Gen. Petraeus.

(love him!)

thanks for complaining, podkarpatska! Sometimes journalists use words without even acknowledging the implications of what they mean.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 12:38:30 PM by IsmiLiora »

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

This guy is an @**.He was asked by the US military, and no doubt other authorities, not to do this. He did it anyway. Now aid workers and police officers, people with a much more courageous and generous spirit than he, are dead.

While his move was an arrogant publicity stunt, he should not be held responsible for the deaths of those innocent people far more courageous than he. His murderers are not robots, they made a choice--first to let something done by a crackpot on the other side of the world make them angry, and second to murder people who had nothing to do with the crackpot or his action. Also, it was Karzai, apparently, who drummed up the angry mobs. Interesting this should be limited to Afghanistan. I haven't heard of any other protests, not that there haven't been, but you think many more Muslims would be angry since this is the reaction we've come to expect from them.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

This guy is an @**.He was asked by the US military, and no doubt other authorities, not to do this. He did it anyway. Now aid workers and police officers, people with a much more courageous and generous spirit than he, are dead.

While his move was an arrogant publicity stunt, he should not be held responsible for the deaths of those innocent people far more courageous than he. His murderers are not robots, they made a choice--first to let something done by a crackpot on the other side of the world make them angry, and second to murder people who had nothing to do with the crackpot or his action. Also, it was Karzai, apparently, who drummed up the angry mobs. Interesting this should be limited to Afghanistan. I haven't heard of any other protests, not that there haven't been, but you think many more Muslims would be angry since this is the reaction we've come to expect from them.

I would hope it was apparent I wasn't convicting the guy of murder. Of course the actual culprits and their ring leader are responsible. But I stand by my belief that his self-serving stunt of pouring gas on a fire put other people in danger. I think that he should be held responsible for such.

You didn't come off that way, sprtslvr1973. I'm speaking generally, but sometimes people don't like to think about the factors and consequences of such an action. Were those Muslims in the wrong? Absolutely. But was Pastor Jones wrong? In my mind, absolutely.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

Yesterday, there was an article in the New York Daily News about him. I took exception to one sentence where the writer stated:

"Ex-Jones parishioners have come out against the pastor, describing his church as an orthodox cult."

I took advantage of her email address at the end of the article and pointed out her misuse of the word "orthodox' in the context of the article. (I know, she didn't use it as a proper noun or adjective.) I politely pointed out some definitions of the word orthodox from the dictionary as well as the word 'fundamentalist' and suggested that no adjective was needed for the word cult. I also pointed out that since her article was online and would be read in the Muslim world, that someone there might not pick up on the linguistic distinction thereby placing Orthodox Churches and faithful at risk.

Much to my pleasant surprise, within a few minutes of my email, she replied, thanked me for pointing this out and she immediately changed her online article.

Sometimes it is good to write and complain in a reasoned manner. You never know.

BRAVO! Good for you (and us)!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

While his move was an arrogant publicity stunt, he should not be held responsible for the deaths of those innocent people far more courageous than he. His murderers are not robots, they made a choice--first to let something done by a crackpot on the other side of the world make them angry, and second to murder people who had nothing to do with the crackpot or his action. Also, it was Karzai, apparently, who drummed up the angry mobs. Interesting this should be limited to Afghanistan. I haven't heard of any other protests, not that there haven't been, but you think many more Muslims would be angry since this is the reaction we've come to expect from them.

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 01:23:41 PM by findingfaith »

Logged

Are you content with just being an intelligent hairless ape that just cannot resist the primitive urge to fling poo at people passing by, just like a monkey in the zoo ?

Do you stay in the field and do the work that you accepted, or do you continuously run back into town and give people black eyes, or maybe push them down the stairs, because they don't do what you do ?

Jones is a doofus, but there's (currently) no law against being a doofus. His right to speech is protected by the First Amendment--whether you and I agree with him or not--and it is necessary, for the sake of the future of our republic, to keep it that way.

Rescinding Jones' right to free speech is nothing less than capitulation to Shari'a--and I'll be damned before I will capitulate to medieval barbarity.

Rescinding Jones' right to free speech is nothing less than capitulation to Shari'a--and I'll be damned before I will capitulate to medieval barbarity.

I don't agree with suppressing his right to free speech, but anyone comparing x to Shari'a (especially when THERE IS NO legitimate threat of Shari'a replacing US democracy through governance) loses all credibility, in my opinion.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

You may have a point here. I am not a Constitutional scholar but there is after all an exception to free speech, much along the lines that you are suggesting. I am referring to the settled law that one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

You may have a point here. I am not a Constitutional scholar but there is after all an exception to free speech, much along the lines that you are suggesting. I am referring to the settled law that one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Without getting into a lengthy history of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment I would offer the following:

Time, Place and Manner restrictions on the expression of Free Speech MAY be deemed constitutional, depending on the context and the legislative intent.

For example, the absolute prohibition of demonstrations on most public property, such as sidewalks or parks, is usually unconstitutional.(Obviously there is a different standard for military bases and the inside of buildings.) However, prohibiting the same without first obtaining a permit MAY be lawful. General restrictions about the time of events, the size of events and the costs of policing and cleaning up after such events MAY also be lawful.

A permit is supposed to be 'content neutral' and fairly easy to obtain. It may not arbitrarily be denied and one denied has a right to some sort of review or hearing and/or judicial review.

A permit may limit the time, size and noise level of demonstrations under certain circumstances, said limitations must be set out clearly in the permitting ordinance or law and they may not be arbitrary.

Permitting is usually justified by the need to assess public safety, sanitation, health, noise and other concerns. Distance from certain places may be established as well for safety reasons. However, that distance restriction has to be 'reasonable' and not be designed to 'hide' the demonstrators from the intended 'audience' of the demonstration.

You may recall from the case in which the Supreme Court permitted the Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors at the time in the 1970's) and the recent Westboro Baptist case, these permitting ordinances are narrowly construed by the courts and may not be used as a cloak to prohibit unpopular or emotionally hurtful demonstrations. (Although there was a spirited minority opinion in the Westboro case which laid out an alternative theory behind First Amendment restrictions. See this for an excellent analysis of Justice Alito's dissent: http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/03/08/opinion/doc4d75c7f4162de944463932.txt )

Now, Jones and his minions are supposedly going to picket at the largest Mosque in America in Detroit. This MAY be viewed in the light of the famous 'crying fire' in the theater case in that given Jones' past behavior and his written statements about Islam, his acts may unreasonably put the general public and public safety personnel at risk of bodily harm or worse. I think that it would be proper and necessary to stop him from burning a Koran or Korans there or for that matter burning anything at that time since what he was burning might not be readily discerned from across the street.

The theory behind the 'fire' analogy is that a reasonable person UNDERSTANDS the consequences of yelling 'fire' in the theater and the PROBABILITIES of harm to others. I wonder if the likelihood that the burning of the Koran in an act of religious opinion would PROVOKE a violent response across the globe should be viewed an differently than one provoked across the street in this day and age of instant communications, the internet, youtube and Facebook? The rules are changing and the law will no doubt have to adapt, for as Bob Dylan once observed, '...the times, they are a changing.'

Lawyers just can't be brief. Sorry if I rambled, but I hope this helped.

Yesterday, there was an article in the New York Daily News about him. I took exception to one sentence where the writer stated:

"Ex-Jones parishioners have come out against the pastor, describing his church as an orthodox cult."

I took advantage of her email address at the end of the article and pointed out her misuse of the word "orthodox' in the context of the article. (I know, she didn't use it as a proper noun or adjective.) I politely pointed out some definitions of the word orthodox from the dictionary as well as the word 'fundamentalist' and suggested that no adjective was needed for the word cult. I also pointed out that since her article was online and would be read in the Muslim world, that someone there might not pick up on the linguistic distinction thereby placing Orthodox Churches and faithful at risk.

Much to my pleasant surprise, within a few minutes of my email, she replied, thanked me for pointing this out and she immediately changed her online article.

Sometimes it is good to write and complain in a reasoned manner. You never know.

Thank you for being proactive.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

You may have a point here. I am not a Constitutional scholar but there is after all an exception to free speech, much along the lines that you are suggesting. I am referring to the settled law that one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Without getting into a lengthy history of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment I would offer the following:

Time, Place and Manner restrictions on the expression of Free Speech MAY be deemed constitutional, depending on the context and the legislative intent.

For example, the absolute prohibition of demonstrations on most public property, such as sidewalks or parks, is usually unconstitutional.(Obviously there is a different standard for military bases and the inside of buildings.) However, prohibiting the same without first obtaining a permit MAY be lawful. General restrictions about the time of events, the size of events and the costs of policing and cleaning up after such events MAY also be lawful.

A permit is supposed to be 'content neutral' and fairly easy to obtain. It may not arbitrarily be denied and one denied has a right to some sort of review or hearing and/or judicial review.

A permit may limit the time, size and noise level of demonstrations under certain circumstances, said limitations must be set out clearly in the permitting ordinance or law and they may not be arbitrary.

Permitting is usually justified by the need to assess public safety, sanitation, health, noise and other concerns. Distance from certain places may be established as well for safety reasons. However, that distance restriction has to be 'reasonable' and not be designed to 'hide' the demonstrators from the intended 'audience' of the demonstration.

You may recall from the case in which the Supreme Court permitted the Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors at the time in the 1970's) and the recent Westboro Baptist case, these permitting ordinances are narrowly construed by the courts and may not be used as a cloak to prohibit unpopular or emotionally hurtful demonstrations. (Although there was a spirited minority opinion in the Westboro case which laid out an alternative theory behind First Amendment restrictions. See this for an excellent analysis of Justice Alito's dissent: http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/03/08/opinion/doc4d75c7f4162de944463932.txt )

Now, Jones and his minions are supposedly going to picket at the largest Mosque in America in Detroit. This MAY be viewed in the light of the famous 'crying fire' in the theater case in that given Jones' past behavior and his written statements about Islam, his acts may unreasonably put the general public and public safety personnel at risk of bodily harm or worse. I think that it would be proper and necessary to stop him from burning a Koran or Korans there or for that matter burning anything at that time since what he was burning might not be readily discerned from across the street.

The theory behind the 'fire' analogy is that a reasonable person UNDERSTANDS the consequences of yelling 'fire' in the theater and the PROBABILITIES of harm to others. I wonder if the likelihood that the burning of the Koran in an act of religious opinion would PROVOKE a violent response across the globe should be viewed an differently than one provoked across the street in this day and age of instant communications, the internet, youtube and Facebook? The rules are changing and the law will no doubt have to adapt, for as Bob Dylan once observed, '...the times, they are a changing.'

Lawyers just can't be brief. Sorry if I rambled, but I hope this helped.

No rambling detected. I thought it was most concise and helpful. May I add one more consideration? I vaguely remember reading that the free speech provision of the First Amendment was enacted primarily to protect political speech. In any case, I think that (a) Reverend Jones was wrong to have burned the Koran, (b) President Karzai of Afghanistan was wrong to use this incident for whatever purposes he had, (c) for the imams to have incited their followers to murderous violence, and (d) for the mobs to have murdered innocents.

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

You may have a point here. I am not a Constitutional scholar but there is after all an exception to free speech, much along the lines that you are suggesting. I am referring to the settled law that one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Without getting into a lengthy history of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment I would offer the following:

Time, Place and Manner restrictions on the expression of Free Speech MAY be deemed constitutional, depending on the context and the legislative intent.

For example, the absolute prohibition of demonstrations on most public property, such as sidewalks or parks, is usually unconstitutional.(Obviously there is a different standard for military bases and the inside of buildings.) However, prohibiting the same without first obtaining a permit MAY be lawful. General restrictions about the time of events, the size of events and the costs of policing and cleaning up after such events MAY also be lawful.

A permit is supposed to be 'content neutral' and fairly easy to obtain. It may not arbitrarily be denied and one denied has a right to some sort of review or hearing and/or judicial review.

A permit may limit the time, size and noise level of demonstrations under certain circumstances, said limitations must be set out clearly in the permitting ordinance or law and they may not be arbitrary.

Permitting is usually justified by the need to assess public safety, sanitation, health, noise and other concerns. Distance from certain places may be established as well for safety reasons. However, that distance restriction has to be 'reasonable' and not be designed to 'hide' the demonstrators from the intended 'audience' of the demonstration.

You may recall from the case in which the Supreme Court permitted the Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors at the time in the 1970's) and the recent Westboro Baptist case, these permitting ordinances are narrowly construed by the courts and may not be used as a cloak to prohibit unpopular or emotionally hurtful demonstrations. (Although there was a spirited minority opinion in the Westboro case which laid out an alternative theory behind First Amendment restrictions. See this for an excellent analysis of Justice Alito's dissent: http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/03/08/opinion/doc4d75c7f4162de944463932.txt )

Now, Jones and his minions are supposedly going to picket at the largest Mosque in America in Detroit. This MAY be viewed in the light of the famous 'crying fire' in the theater case in that given Jones' past behavior and his written statements about Islam, his acts may unreasonably put the general public and public safety personnel at risk of bodily harm or worse. I think that it would be proper and necessary to stop him from burning a Koran or Korans there or for that matter burning anything at that time since what he was burning might not be readily discerned from across the street.

The theory behind the 'fire' analogy is that a reasonable person UNDERSTANDS the consequences of yelling 'fire' in the theater and the PROBABILITIES of harm to others. I wonder if the likelihood that the burning of the Koran in an act of religious opinion would PROVOKE a violent response across the globe should be viewed an differently than one provoked across the street in this day and age of instant communications, the internet, youtube and Facebook? The rules are changing and the law will no doubt have to adapt, for as Bob Dylan once observed, '...the times, they are a changing.'

Lawyers just can't be brief. Sorry if I rambled, but I hope this helped.

No rambling detected. I thought it was most concise and helpful. May I add one more consideration? I vaguely remember reading that the free speech provision of the First Amendment was enacted primarily to protect political speech. In any case, I think that (a) Reverend Jones was wrong to have burned the Koran, (b) President Karzai of Afghanistan was wrong to use this incident for his own purposes, (c) for the imams to have incited their followers to murderous violence, and (d) for the mobs to have murdered innocents.

This is called foresight, he knew full well the potential reaction it would illicit, in persisting, he ignored that foresight and made himself liable for the consequences of his actions.attempting to make a negative look positive, based on the negative reaction to your negative actions, is self serving, and just pandering to the hate crowd, making himself no better than thosehe's aiming at.

It's like saying the rabid dog is responsible for biting the hand of the person who tried to pet him after he was told it was a rabid dog.I mean cmon, I wonder what would happen if I start poking radical islam with a big Cross, gee I don't know, I have no frame of reference, or do I?we are all liable for the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad, known or unknown, he is not an exception.

You may have a point here. I am not a Constitutional scholar but there is after all an exception to free speech, much along the lines that you are suggesting. I am referring to the settled law that one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Without getting into a lengthy history of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment I would offer the following:

Time, Place and Manner restrictions on the expression of Free Speech MAY be deemed constitutional, depending on the context and the legislative intent.

For example, the absolute prohibition of demonstrations on most public property, such as sidewalks or parks, is usually unconstitutional.(Obviously there is a different standard for military bases and the inside of buildings.) However, prohibiting the same without first obtaining a permit MAY be lawful. General restrictions about the time of events, the size of events and the costs of policing and cleaning up after such events MAY also be lawful.

A permit is supposed to be 'content neutral' and fairly easy to obtain. It may not arbitrarily be denied and one denied has a right to some sort of review or hearing and/or judicial review.

A permit may limit the time, size and noise level of demonstrations under certain circumstances, said limitations must be set out clearly in the permitting ordinance or law and they may not be arbitrary.

Permitting is usually justified by the need to assess public safety, sanitation, health, noise and other concerns. Distance from certain places may be established as well for safety reasons. However, that distance restriction has to be 'reasonable' and not be designed to 'hide' the demonstrators from the intended 'audience' of the demonstration.

You may recall from the case in which the Supreme Court permitted the Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors at the time in the 1970's) and the recent Westboro Baptist case, these permitting ordinances are narrowly construed by the courts and may not be used as a cloak to prohibit unpopular or emotionally hurtful demonstrations. (Although there was a spirited minority opinion in the Westboro case which laid out an alternative theory behind First Amendment restrictions. See this for an excellent analysis of Justice Alito's dissent: http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/03/08/opinion/doc4d75c7f4162de944463932.txt )

Now, Jones and his minions are supposedly going to picket at the largest Mosque in America in Detroit. This MAY be viewed in the light of the famous 'crying fire' in the theater case in that given Jones' past behavior and his written statements about Islam, his acts may unreasonably put the general public and public safety personnel at risk of bodily harm or worse. I think that it would be proper and necessary to stop him from burning a Koran or Korans there or for that matter burning anything at that time since what he was burning might not be readily discerned from across the street.

The theory behind the 'fire' analogy is that a reasonable person UNDERSTANDS the consequences of yelling 'fire' in the theater and the PROBABILITIES of harm to others. I wonder if the likelihood that the burning of the Koran in an act of religious opinion would PROVOKE a violent response across the globe should be viewed an differently than one provoked across the street in this day and age of instant communications, the internet, youtube and Facebook? The rules are changing and the law will no doubt have to adapt, for as Bob Dylan once observed, '...the times, they are a changing.'

Lawyers just can't be brief. Sorry if I rambled, but I hope this helped.

No rambling detected. I thought it was most concise and helpful. May I add one more consideration? I vaguely remember reading that the free speech provision of the First Amendment was enacted primarily to protect political speech. In any case, I think that (a) Reverend Jones was wrong to have burned the Koran, (b) President Karzai of Afghanistan was wrong to use this incident for his own purposes, (c) for the imams to have incited their followers to murderous violence, and (d) for the mobs to have murdered innocents.